Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1067 (GAU)

Mohendra Das v. State of Assam

2015-08-21

M.R.PATHAK, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P. K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2011, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 151/2006 convicting the appellant, namely, Sri Mohendra Das (herein after referred to as the accused person) of offence u/s 302/201 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) i.d. R.I. for another 6 (six) months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused person has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., for the State. 4. The case, projected by prosecution in the FIR dated 04.08.2005 and in subsequent trial, in short, is that on 03.08.2005 at about 7 pm, accused Mohendra came to the house of one Binanda Singh (since deceased) and took him to the paddy filed in order to bring water delivery pipe from the field. But Binanda did not return home that night. Next day in the morning, daughter of Binanda found underwear, vest and Gamosa of Binanda lying in the paddy filed. 5. The matter was then reported to other family members of the deceased. In the mean time, father of the accused was also requested to give information about his son who is the appellant herein. In response to such query, father of the accused replied that the accused had gone mad for which he was hospitalized. However, such reply could not satisfy the family members of the victim. 6. Not being able to know anything whereabouts of the victim, Sri Bidhu Ch. Singh, the informant and also the brother of the victim, lodged an FIR with O/C, Missamari Police Station. On receipt of such an FIR, O/C, Missamari Police Station registered a case, vide Missamari P.S. Case No. 61/2005, u/s 302/201 IPC and O/C himself took up the investigation. 7. On the same day, the body of the victim was found floating in the nearby river called Belsiri. On receipt of such an FIR, O/C, Missamari Police Station registered a case, vide Missamari P.S. Case No. 61/2005, u/s 302/201 IPC and O/C himself took up the investigation. 7. On the same day, the body of the victim was found floating in the nearby river called Belsiri. During the course of investigation, the IO conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused person, did other things needful and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to stand his trial. 8. The learned Magistrate before whom charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur on receipt of case, on commitment, transferred the same to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC for disposal in accordance with law. 9. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, on receipt of the case on transfer and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to frame charges u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. During trial, prosecution had examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses including the informant, I/O of the case as well as the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. The statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded. His plea was of total denial. However, on being required, he declined to adduce any evidence of his own. 11. On conclusion of trial and on hearing arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused of offences u/s 302/201 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment under challenge cannot be sustained since the prosecution case is basically based on last scene theory and such theory, in the case under consideration, remains far from being established. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment under challenge cannot be sustained since the prosecution case is basically based on last scene theory and such theory, in the case under consideration, remains far from being established. In that connection, it has been stated that prosecution could not even establish that on the fateful evening, the accused visited the house of the deceased, much less his taking the deceased from his house with him as alleged. 13. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument for a moment that on the fateful evening, the accused went to the house of deceased and left his house taking the deceased with him, yet, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the accused alone and none else, was the person responsible for extinguishing the life of the deceased on the night aforesaid. 14. This is because of the fact that though the accused and the deceased reportedly left the house of the deceased on the evening of 03.08.2005, yet, his dead body was recovered on 04.08.2005, and that that too, only towards the evening, meaning thereby that the gap between the time when the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused person and the time of discovery of the body of the deceased was too big for application of last scene theory. 15. It has also been stated that some very vital information including the witnesses seeing the deceased leaving his house in the company of the accused person or some of the witnesses seeing the victim walking on the bank of the river Belsiri along with the accused person had not been disclosed to the IO during investigation. But those witnesses chose to disclose such evidence for the first time before the Court during trial which makes the testimonies of all those witnesses to suffer from vice which is commonly called as contradiction which again makes such evidence unreliable. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in a case, based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution needs to establish the motive of the accused person but in the present case, prosecution had miserably failed to prove the motive of the accused in killing the deceased. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in a case, based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution needs to establish the motive of the accused person but in the present case, prosecution had miserably failed to prove the motive of the accused in killing the deceased. For all those reasons, learned counsel for the appellant urges this court to set aside the judgment under challenge on acquitting the accused person of the offences, he was charged with. 17. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP, submits that testimonies of PW 1, Sri Bidhu Ch. Singh, PW 4, Smti. Sabitri Rani Singh, PW 5, Smti. Rupali Sing and PW 6, Smti. Dipali Singh clearly show that on the eventful evening, the accused came to the house of the deceased and took the deceased with him to the field in order to carry some water delivery pipes there-from to the house of accused person. 18. There is also evidence on record in the form of testimonies of some of the witnesses to show that the blood stained clothes of the victim were found at the field aforesaid early in the morning of 04.08.2005 which, in turn, firmly demonstrates that the victim must have died on the night of 03.08.2005 itself. The fact that he did not return home although he was supposed to return sometime thereafter makes such a conclusion inevitable. 19. According to learned Addl. PP, there is evidence in the form of testimony of PW 3, Sri Maheswar Kurmi to show that on the eventful evening, 03.08.2005 being the evening, he saw the accused walking with the victim on the bank of river Belsiri. Such evidence coupled with the fact that body of the victim was found floating in the river Belsiri again shows that the accused, and none else, had killed the deceased on the night of 03.08.2005. 20. The death of the deceased is homicidal as disclosed by Dr. Lakhaswar Bhuyan (PW 11). When such evidence of Doctor is considered, in the light of other evidence on record, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the accused was the person responsible for killing the deceased on the night aforementioned. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, therefore, urges this court to dismiss the present appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 21. When such evidence of Doctor is considered, in the light of other evidence on record, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the accused was the person responsible for killing the deceased on the night aforementioned. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, therefore, urges this court to dismiss the present appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 21. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. He is Dr. Lakhaswar Bhuyan, who was examined as PW 11. According to PW 11, he performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Binanda Singh at Civil Hospital, Tezpur, on 05-08-2005 and found the following: --- “An adult stout male dead body with rigor mortis. The injuries over both sides of neck present with haematoma and congestion of muscle of neck present. Fracture of cervical spine at the level of C4 C5 present. Blistering of skin present over rib walls. All other organs are healthy. Injuries described above are anti mortem in nature. Opinion:- In my opinion, the person died of asphyxia as a result of throttling and fracture of cervical spine.” He proved the post mortem examination as Exbt. 5. 22. The evidence of doctor reveals that the death of the deceased was clearly homicidal in nature and it resulted from throttling and fracture of cervical spine of the deceased. Now, the question which needs to be answered is who occasioned the homicidal death of the victim on or about 03.08.2005. In this connection, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 5. 23. PW 1, Sri Bidhu Ch Singh deposes that the deceased was his cousin and they lived in different houses but in the same compound. One day towards the evening in 2005, the accused person came to their house and requested the victim to accompany him to the field so that they could bring water delivery pipe from the paddy field to the house of the accused person. Being so requested, the victim left his house with the accused person. However, his brother did not return home that night. Since the victim and the accused were friends, he and other family members did not suspect anything. 24. Being so requested, the victim left his house with the accused person. However, his brother did not return home that night. Since the victim and the accused were friends, he and other family members did not suspect anything. 24. In the morning, he sent his nephew Durga Singh to the house of the accused person. On an inquiry being made by Durga Singh regarding the whereabouts of the victim, the father of the accused person told Durga that the accused had gone mad and was admitted at Tezpur Civil Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he (PW 1) along with Birendra Singh and Durga Singh started searching for the victim and in that process, they discovered one Gaomsa, vest and underwear of the deceased lying near the water delivery pipe. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR with the O/C, Missamari PS which he proved as Ext. 1. 25. Police came to such place and seized the said clothes on the strength of seizure list Ext. 2. Further, on the same day at about 5 pm in the evening, village people and his nephew Durga Singh discovered the body of his brother floating in the river Belsiri. However, on the next day, he found the dead body of his brother at the police station. At that time, they found the body of the deceased without any clothes. He also noticed marks of injuries on the body of the deceased. 26. According to him, the place where the dead body was found floating in the river is situated at a distance of 200-300 meters from his house. In his cross examination, he confirmed that wife of the deceased saw the accused to come to their house and also saw the accused taking the deceased with him. In his cross examination, he further admitted that he did not collect the Gamosa from the place aforesaid. Suggestions that the deceased was a drunker or was in the habit of playing the game of betting were denied by him. 27. Smti. Sabitri Rani Singh ( PW 4) , wife of the victim, deposes that one day at about 7 pm, the accused came to her house and left their house taking the victim with him. Her husband did not return home that night. 27. Smti. Sabitri Rani Singh ( PW 4) , wife of the victim, deposes that one day at about 7 pm, the accused came to her house and left their house taking the victim with him. Her husband did not return home that night. They did not go out in search of her husband since the victim went out of his house in the company of the accused person who happened to be his friend. However, when he did not return home till next day morning, they started searching for him. 28. Subsequently, her daughter Dipali (PW 6) and Rupali (PW5) informed her that the mud stained vest and Gamosa of the deceased were found lying in the paddy field. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. On same day, in the evening, the body of her husband was found floating in the Belsiri river in a naked condition. 29. In her cross- examination, she states that her husband used to go to the place where water delivery pump is located and she used to go to such place carrying food for her husband. In her cross-examination, she also admitted that when the accused came to her house, she was preparing food in the kitchen and therefore, she came to know from her daughter Dipali (PW 6) that the accused came to their house and left their house taking her husband with him. 30. Smti. Dipali Singh (PW 6) also deposes that on 03.08.2005 at about 7 pm, the accused came to their house and took her father to the paddy field for watering in the field but her father did not return home that night. In the morning, they started searching for their father and found the mud stained clothes of the victim lying in the field. They reported the matter to their uncle (PW 1) who, in turn, reported the matter to the police. Subsequently, the dead body of their father was recovered from the river Belsiri. 31. Supporting the statement of PW 6, Smti. Rupali Singh (PW 5) deposes that one day in the evening at about 7 pm, the accused came to their house and took her father to the field nearby for watering at such place. Her father did not return home that night. 31. Supporting the statement of PW 6, Smti. Rupali Singh (PW 5) deposes that one day in the evening at about 7 pm, the accused came to their house and took her father to the field nearby for watering at such place. Her father did not return home that night. Next day, in the morning they started searching for their father and on arriving at the place where water pump is installed, they saw the clothes of her father lying there, stained with mud etc. 32. Same day in the afternoon, the body of their father was found floating in the nearby river. In her cross examination, she states that generally her father used to come home at about 4 pm. While the accused came to their house on the evening, aforesaid, she was preparing food in the kitchen. She confirms that they started searching for their father when her father did not return home till the morning of the day which followed the night in question. 33. Sri Maheswar Kurmi (PW 3) deposes that on 03.08.2005 at about 5 pm, he saw Binanda and Mahendra walking by the side of river Belsiri. Next day, at about 7 am, he came to know from the wife of Binanda (PW 4) that Binanda had gone missing. He also got such information from the villagers as well. On coming to know about victim’s going missing since previous evening, he came to the house of the PW 4. 34. On arriving at the house of the PW4, he learnt from the later that previous evening, the accused came to their house and took her husband from their house to the field to bring water delivery pipes to the house of accused person. On being so informed, he told PW 4 about his seeing the victim in the bank of the river Belsiri in the company of accused person previous evening at about 7 pm. 35. On coming to know about such incident, he along with other started searching for Binanda and in course of such search, they found the vest, underwear and Gamosa, used by victim, near the place where the water pump was installed. The matter was then reported to the police. In the evening, same day, the body of victim was found floating in Belsiri river. 36. The matter was then reported to the police. In the evening, same day, the body of victim was found floating in Belsiri river. 36. In his cross examination, PW 3 deposes that the victim’s going missing from the night of 03.08.2005 was brought to his knowledge for the first time by the wife of the victim in the morning of 04.08.2005. The suggestion that he did not told the police during investigation that he saw Binanda and the accused walking by the side of river Belsiri on 03.08.2005 in the evening was denied by him. 37. Md. Abdul Karim (PW 7) deposes that one day, he came to know from villagers that they saw the victim and the accused walking on the bank of river Belsiri. Next day, in the morning, he came to know from the sister of the victim that the victim did not return home previous night. On getting such information, he rushed to the house of victim and found all his family members weeping there. 38. He along with other started searching for the victim and in that process, they found some wearing apparels in the field near the place where water delivery pipes were installed. In the meantime, Police was informed and on being so informed, police came and seized the vest, Gamosa etc. from the field on the strength of seizure list Exbt. 2. 39. Though they made a search for victim as well, yet, they could not locate him. However, towards the evening, he learnt that body of the victim was found floating in the river Belsiri. In his cross examination, PW 7 states that villagers were heard saying that the victim along with accused left his house of former in the evening in question. 40. According to him, villagers, such as, Hasia Majhi, Dhansai Majhi, Khitish Singh Moha Singh, Mohendra Singh and others were also heard saying that they saw the accused and the victim walking by the side of river Belsiri on the evening of 03.08.2005. He further confirms that the victim never took alcohol. In his cross examination, he further confirms that the clothes which were found near the water delivery pipe belonged to the deceased, and none else. 41. He further confirms that the victim never took alcohol. In his cross examination, he further confirms that the clothes which were found near the water delivery pipe belonged to the deceased, and none else. 41. PW 2, Sri Abdul Gafur deposes that one day in 2005, Bidhu, brother of the victim, told him that victim came out of his house previous night and did not return home. Therefore, the matter was reported to the police. He also came to know that Gamosa and the vest of the deceased were found lying near the place where the water pump was installed. 42. Police seized those articles on the strength of seizure list Exbt. 2. The seized articles were identified by him as M. Exbt. 1. On 04.08.2005, in the afternoon, the body of the victim was found floating in the Belsiri river. He was however, declared hostile. In his cross examination, he states that he did not know how the victim met his death. 43. PW 8, Sri Sri Birendra Ch. Singh and PW 9 Sukhdew Mahato have stated that about 18-19 months before their rendering evidence before the Court, they saw the body of the deceased at Thelamara P.S. They noticed some injuries on the neck of the deceased. They also noticed injuries on the face of the ill fated person. 44. PW 10 is Sri Tapash Chakraborty and is one of the IOs. According to him, on 05.08.2005 while he was posted at Thelamara PS, he got information from Bidhu Singh that his brother was killed by somebody and his body was found floating in the river Belsiri. He got such information at about 8.30 am. On getting such information, he made a GD entry vide GD Entry No. 68 dated 05.08.2005. 45. Thereafter, he went to Belsiri River nearby and found the body of the deceased floating in the aforesaid river. He retrieved the same and conducted inquest on the dead body and thereafter, he sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination. He found injuries on the neck of the deceased. In that connection, he opened a supplementary case diary (in short, SCD) and in due course, he sent the same to the O/C Missamari Police Station for doing further needful. 46. PW 12, Sri Kamal Baruah is another IO. According to him, on 04.08.2005, he was posted as Officer in charge of Missamari PS. In that connection, he opened a supplementary case diary (in short, SCD) and in due course, he sent the same to the O/C Missamari Police Station for doing further needful. 46. PW 12, Sri Kamal Baruah is another IO. According to him, on 04.08.2005, he was posted as Officer in charge of Missamari PS. On that day, he received an FIR from Bidhu Singh (PW 1). On receipt of the FIR, he registered a case, vide Missamari PS Case No. 61/2005 u/s 302/201 IPC and he himself took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited different places and seized one blood and mud stained Gamosa and vest from the place where water delivery pipes were installed. 47. He seized those articles on the strength of seizure list Exbt. 2. He also prepared a sketch map of the PO which he proved as Exbt. 6. Meanwhile the body of the deceased was found floating in the Belsiri river at a place falling under Thelamara PS. Therefore, police from Thelamara PS retrieved the dead body, conducted an inquest thereon and thereafter, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination. Since the accused had absconded in the meantime, he could not arrest him immediately. 48. In the meantime, the accused obtained pre arrest bail from the Court. On the conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person. In his cross examination, he confirms that PW 1 did not tell him during investigation that when the accused came to the house of victim on 03.08.2005 in the evening, the later was in his house. PW 1 did not tell him during investigation that the accused along with other killed the victim. 49. In his cross examination, he further denied the suggestion (i) that PW 1 told him (IO) that he sent Durga Singh to the house of the accused person to make an inquiry about the accused person and (ii) that when Durga Singh met the father of the accused person, he was told by the father of the accused that the accused had gone mad and was admitted in hospital. PW 12 also confirms that PW 3 did not state before him that on 03.08.2005, he saw Binanda and the accused walking on the bank of river Belsiri. 50. PW 12 also confirms that PW 3 did not state before him that on 03.08.2005, he saw Binanda and the accused walking on the bank of river Belsiri. 50. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence makes out the allegations, leveled against the accused person. It is worth noting that PWs were subjected to detailed cross examination and such cross examination shows some infirmities in the testimonies of those PWs. But such infirmities in the testimonies of PWs are found to be quite minor in nature which occurred only in peripheral matters. 51. Coming back to the evidence on record, it is found that evidence of Doctor clearly reveals that deceased died a homicidal death since he died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Though an attempt was made to show that such injury may be self inflicted one, yet, there is evidence on record to show that such claim has no basis whatsoever. 52. This is because of the fact that there is indisputable evidence on record to show that the victim died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Such revelations, coupled with the fact that blood and mud stained wearing apparels of the victim were found in the field whereas his body with very many injuries thereon was found floating in a naked condition in the nearby Belsiri river on 04.08.2005 , make such a conclusion inevitable. 53. On perusal of evidence of principle prosecution witnesses, we have also found that on the eventful night, same being 03.08.2005, the accused came to the house of victim and left his house taking the deceased with him. The evidence of PWs further demonstrates that victim and the accused person were to go to the field to carry the water pipes there from to the house of the accused person but he did not return home that night as expected. 54. On perusal of evidence on record more and more, it is also found that on the next day, in the morning, the wearing apparels of the deceased were found near the place where the water delivery pipes were installed. What is important to note is that his wearing apparels, stained with blood and mud, were found at a place where the accused and the deceased were supposed to go on the evening in question. 55. What is important to note is that his wearing apparels, stained with blood and mud, were found at a place where the accused and the deceased were supposed to go on the evening in question. 55. Record also reveals that though worried family members made frantic search to trace the victim, such effort yield no result till the evening when the body of the luckless person was found floating in the Belsiri river in a completely naked condition. What is important to note here is that on reading the evidence of the PWs including that of Doctor in totality, one would find that the victim must have died on the night of 03.08.2005 itself. 56. Testimonies of the PW 1, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 coupled with averments made in FIR make it more than clear that the victim was last seen in the company of the accused person on the evening of 03.08.2005 when both of them left the house of the victim presumably to carry water pipes from the field to the house of the accused person. 57. It is equally worth noting that PW 3 too saw the victim and the accused hanging around on the bank of river Belsiri on 03.08.2005 in the evening. Though the I/O confirms that PW3 did not told him that he (PW3) saw the victim and the deceased roaming on the bank of river Belsiri on 03.08.2005 in the evening, yet, only for not divulging such information to the I/O, the above claim of the PW3 cannot be thrown away. 58. This is more so, when there is evidence on record in the form of res gestae to show that some other villagers too saw those two persons roaming on the bank of the river Belsiri on the evening aforesaid. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record, it needs to be concluded that the accused was last seen in the company of the accused on 03.08.2005 in the evening. More important, the victim appeared to have died on the night of 03.08.2005 itself. 59. We have also found that the help of family members of the accused person was sought for tracing the victim but family members of the accused person did nothing to help the family members of the victim in locating the later as is evident from the testimony of PW 1. 59. We have also found that the help of family members of the accused person was sought for tracing the victim but family members of the accused person did nothing to help the family members of the victim in locating the later as is evident from the testimony of PW 1. Quite contrary to it, the father of the accused tried to dodge such request for help by saying that the accused had gone mad and as such, he was admitted in hospital for treatment, a claim which is found to be huge lie. 60. What is worse, the accused absconded soon after the incident in question. Such conduct on the part of the accused as well as his father, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not go well with the claim of the accused that he is no way connected with the crime in question. The fact that he absconded soon after the incident doubly demonstrates that everything was not hunky dory on the part of the accused person. 61. However, as stated above, prosecution case comes under sharp criticism on counts more than one. It is alleged that the gap between the deceased going missing on the evening of 03.08.2005 and discovery of his body in the Belsiri river on 04.08.2005 in the evening is too big a gap for operation of last scene theory. 62. It has also been contended that some very vital information was not disclosed by the prime prosecution witnesses , they being PW1 , PW4 , PW5 and PW6 , to the IO during the course of investigation although they chose to divulge such information before the court during trial only which makes their evidence to suffer from vice called contradictions. 63. It has also been alleged that prosecution case is though based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved by the prosecution hardly implicate the accused with the crime in question, much less, such circumstances proving the charge leveled against the accused person. 64. We have considered the submissions in the light of evidence on record and have found that such contentions are without any basis. Our foregoing discussions have made it more than clear and same needs no further reinstatement. Suffice it to say that such allegations hardly find any ground to stand on. Accordingly, all those allegations are rejected. 65. 64. We have considered the submissions in the light of evidence on record and have found that such contentions are without any basis. Our foregoing discussions have made it more than clear and same needs no further reinstatement. Suffice it to say that such allegations hardly find any ground to stand on. Accordingly, all those allegations are rejected. 65. Our foregoing discussion now, reveals that prosecution has proved the below mentioned facts beyond any shadow of doubt:-- (i) on the evening of 03.08.2005, the accused came to the house of the deceased and left his house taking him purportedly for carrying water deliver pipes from the place where water pump was installed to the house of accused person, (ii) the victim did not return home that night, (iii) nobody suspected any foul-play since both the accused and the deceased were good friends, (iv) next day in the morning, a search was made for the victim and father of the accused was requested to give the whereabouts of the accused person, (v) father of the accused had stated that the accused had gone mad and was therefore hospitalized, a plea found to be downright falsehood, (vi) the victim’s wearing apparels stained with mud and blood were found in the place where water pump was installed where the accused and the deceased were supposed to come on the evening in question, (vii) Villagers including PW 3 saw the victim and the accused roaming in the bank of river Belsiri on the evening of 03.08.2005, (viii) The body of the victim was found floating in a completely naked condition in the river Belsiri on 04.08.2005 in the afternoon, (ix) the death of the victim was found to be homicidal in nature and (x) The accused had absconded soon after the incident in question. 66. When all those tremendously incriminating circumstances are read together, it would appear clear that those circumstances form a chain of events without any break anywhere which leads to lone and sole conclusion that accused, and none else, was responsible for killing the victim on the night of 03.08.2005. In our opinion, any other conclusion would be wholly incompatible with the aforesaid proved circumstances. 67. All the incriminating circumstances were notified to the accused person while he was examined u/s 313 CrPC. He could not offer any plausible explanations to those incriminating circumstances. In our opinion, any other conclusion would be wholly incompatible with the aforesaid proved circumstances. 67. All the incriminating circumstances were notified to the accused person while he was examined u/s 313 CrPC. He could not offer any plausible explanations to those incriminating circumstances. Such failure on the part of the accused person, in our considered opinion, as held in the case of Prithipal Singh Etc Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10 , gives the prosecution case more and more firm footing to conclude that the accused, and none else, was the person who killed the victim on the night aforementioned. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:- 44. Both the courts below have found that the accused/appellants have abducted Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra. In such a situation, only the accused person could explain as what happened to Shri Khalra, and if he had died, in what manner and under what circumstances he had died and why his corpus delicti could not be recovered. All the accused/appellants failed to explain any inculpating circumstance even in their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Such a conduct also provides for an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The fact as what had happened to the victim after his abduction by the accused persons, has been within the special knowledge of the accused persons, therefore, they could have given some explanation. In such a fact-situation, the Courts below have rightly drawn the presumption that the appellants were responsible for his adduction, illegal detention and murder. 68. We have found that the victim did not have any ill habits, including playing of cards or taking of alcohol. There is nothing on record to show that any person had any ill motive towards the victim requiring such person to hatch up any conspiracy to extinguish his life. In other words, there is absolutely no material on record to show that any person other than the accused had any opportunity or occasion to come in contact with the deceased during the period between his going missing on the evening of 03.08.2005 and the discovery of his blood stained clothes at the place aforementioned on 04.08.2005 in the morning. 69. 69. Such revelation, in no uncertain terms, demonstrates that the last seen theory finds its application to the case in hand with its full force which firmly establishes that the accused was the author of the crime in question. The fact that the accused had failed to explain as to how the victim met his homicidal death when he was still in his company during the time under consideration as well as the fact that he was found giving false reply to the proved circumstances make such a conclusion inevitable. 70. In view of what we have discussed here in before we have found that the accused is the person responsible for killing the deceased on 03.08.2005 and he is the person who took steps for concealing the dead body after killing and therefore, in our opinion prosecution has proved the charge u/s 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 71. Situation being such, in our considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused person u/s 302 IPC and properly sentenced him to punishment and as such, judgment in question does not invite any interference from this court of appeal. 72. Accordingly, the present appeal lacks merit and same is dismissed. 73. Return the LCR forthwith.